For all who might wonder whether Entrecard is worth it, especially now that Graham Langdon is advertising "special" deals for $250 each, let me tell you that since the RLCC was banned by Entrecard, traffic has fallen off by a little less than the number of regular droppers. In other words, the content of the site was not compelling visitors but rather the visitors an opportunity quickly to drop to earn a credit. Now, you might think that those Entrecarders were for the most part killing two birds with one stone, so to speak, that they were earning a credit but also reading. Well, now that they've stopped coming en masse, the time that visitors are spending on this site has quadrupled and stands at its highest average rate since this blog went public. So, what would that $250 really buy? Could it be put to better use, perhaps to the highest and best use?

I was on Entrecard to get the message in front of eyes for a while — always knowing that eventually I would be banned. The eyes over there that belong to those who were even slightly interested in what real Christianity might have to offer, in their view, visited and saw. That's that.

After the banning, I was anonymously messaged that I had made a big mistake, meaning I had harmed the cause of the Christian Commons Project. What a shallow view. It is not I who harmed or has been harmed in that sense.

It was time to move on, to shake the dust from my feet, which I have done.

Visitors will also note that no proper responses have been forthcoming from Entrecard or any of its moderators, including Matt Oxley, who has had more than enough time to answer concerning especially EuroYank's banning from Entrecard. That is why I shook the dust.

[NOTE: This post has been subsequently added to the series "Entrecard" because it is referenced in the email response to Entrecard's decision.]


Here is the message I received from Entrecard. Please note that they have precluded any appeal.

Your account 'Real Liberal Christian Church & Christian Commons' on entrecard.com has been deleted. The administrator gave the following reason:

attacking EC staff and misleading members. This decision will not be reversed

Please contact [deleted]@entrecard.com if you have any questions regarding this action.

Please include the following:
User ID: 26275

My email reply:

There was no attack until this:

I have never laid personal attack on you but I have to wonder why there is no category for "zealot" on Entrecard...you may feel more at home there.

see...that doesn't feel too good does it?

That came from your moderator, Matt Oxley.


I have never laid personal attack on you but I have to wonder why there is no category for "zealot" on Entrecard...you may feel more at home there.

see...that doesn't feel too good does it?

I had written nothing attacking Matt or any other EC staff. I had merely suggested a category addition/change: Hardly an attack?

Your moderator even characterized his statement as an attack. He took my suggestion for a category as an attack, and he commenced to do harm, didn't he? You know he did. So will everyone else.

It was a punch from your moderator. It was not called for? I suggested a category. He came to the site and threw the pejorative "zealot" at me. I had called him what he calls himself: Atheist. He knows that the Zealots were anti-Christ. It was an attack, hence his statement, "that doesn't feel too good does it?" That's not mistakable. That's an attack - a first strike. From there, it was a highly activist Atheist versus a highly activist Christian.

What you've done is allowed Matt Oxley to hit out at others and then run behind Entrecard for cover. Anyone telling it as it is thereafter and from a purely religious standpoint is deleted.

From that point, I was inundated with extreme attacks many of whom submitted comments without following the name rule. Therefore, their comments are not showing on the RLCC site.

Matt Oxley expressly wrote about himself, "My feelings are not hurt." Therefore, what attack? However, he also wrote, "My blog is centered on the destruction of religion." That means that his blog is centered on the destruction of my life, yet you call him a non-attacker when he comes to my site to tell me he's out to destroy me? It's okay with you that your moderators can work to destroy my life's work, but I am not allowed to stand up against that? That's utter hypocrisy.

Tell me one thing I did that you say was wrong toward Matt that Matt did not do toward me? I don't stop Matt with anything but my words, but you stop me from being able to speak. Why? Your actions are clearly discrimination on account of religion.

Matt wrote:

I don't think you personally have attacked me prior to this post...but you certainly have shown me your true colors (you already had once, which is why I never bothered responding to your reply to my other comments on your blog)...you wanted to attack me, i just made it easier...i know how you think, though that may surprise you.

When i called you a zealot I was being playful...giving you an opportunity to retort in the way that you truly wanted to...you simply filled the role that I expected you to fill...You have the right to call me evil, be it inherited or chosen on my part, and you don't have to coddle to my Atheism at all.

At best, taking Matt's words on face value, he has admitted that he had not been attacked and called me a "zealot" to start a fight. It's as clear as clear can be, and you're protecting him and providing him with a platform that you are denying me because he's an atheist and I'm a Christian. That's a fact.

Also, since he was acting in his official capacity, then why don't his words matter here: "You [that's me, Tom Usher] have the right to call me evil, be it inherited or chosen on my part, and you don't have to coddle to my Atheism at all." So, your moderator says I can, but "The administrator" can reverse the moderator without notice to the banned blogger or without any right of appeal. That's what has happened here.

Matt also wrote about himself, "nothing I do now harms anyone in any way whatsoever." That was after coming to my site and calling me a zealot, which he admitted was designed to hurt feelings and start a fight.

He also, your moderator, trolling, called me a liar on my own site. He said, "The Truth doesn't know you." He knows my religion is that Jesus Christ is the truth. He came to my site to attack me and to destroy my religion, and you're working to help him. He did so apparently in his official capacity as an Entrecard moderator else you would not have applied any rule concerning your moderators. Your rules apply across the whole Internet no matter the actions of your moderators?

Now, I have to wonder whether Matt Oxley's blog has been likewise deleted. I will check. I'm sure it hasn't. Of course, it's obvious why I'll find it still active in Entrecard. Anti-Christs are welcome. Those who stand up to them, are not. Am I wrong? No, I'm right.

You are mistaken. You have arbitrarily sided with your moderator who instigated. He started the problem, which is indisputable. I have also gone to great lengths to explain the theology of everything I said, much of which Matt Oxley openly, pridefully, embraced in reverse. He embraced the names.

He even claimed in his comment that he was setting me up, taking actions designed to elicit what he says he knew would happen. Do you know that that's illegal? He has deliberately and with malice aforethought damaged the RLCC and Christian Commons Project. He has openly stated on my blog that it was premeditated on his part. Are you really going to let it stand? He did it using Entrecard. He did as an insider at Entrecard. Entrecard has now been told. If it does nothing, it is an accomplice: Complicit.

I posted two posts in detail before discovering that you had deleted the blog. Those posts were written without having been influenced by the deletion. They are honest, open, and direct.

It is clear that on Entrecard at this time, it's okay for your moderators to troll the Internet and to leave attacking comments but that any defense by any Entrecard member will be punished with banishment and in the case of the RLCC, the loss of hundreds and hundreds of hours of work to bank over 28,000 EC [28,950, to be exact], which technically the RLCC owns and you are stealing. Those EC have a future value.

It is up to you how you want to run Entrecard.

Many people are going to realize that you deleted my blog not from a spirit of fundamental fairness but rather in protection of the one who came to the RLCC site and "laid personal attack" and did so first, which is obvious to every honest person.

The Entrecard users have a right to know what happened.

As for misleading members, you'll have to explain that. Misleading them how and about what? I'm the one misleading people here?

Of course, your forum is now restricted so that members will find it very difficult to communicate with one another concerning your unfair actions toward the RLCC.

Now it must appear more than slightly suspicious to all why I was ignored for weeks on end concerning my trouble tickets while other's blogs advertised away and received plenty of click-throughs but the RLCC's ads did not run even though paid for. The spirit there would have dropped everything to get Matt Oxley's ads running if he had had a problem. My problem dragged on week after week with only one murmur and that was to say there is no problem and to notify me that the ticket was closed. There's no misleading anyone about anything on my side. I was open about it all. You are the ones who have become more closed.

Nevertheless, Peace and Blessing to All,

For: The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project
Tom Usher


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Maybe, you should send an email directly Graham and report it. You can follow him via twitter and send a dm there. I think that is the fastest way to get in touch with him.

      • Hi Atniz,

        Thank you for your suggestion.

        Atniz, as you can see, you lost your gravatar when you used a different email address. If you want it back, let me know and then always use your old email address; otherwise, grab another avatar using your new address (at least new here). Hope this helps, although I more than suspect I'm preaching to the choir on techie matters. You're no slouch in the Internet networking. (She's what could rightly be considered a bit of an expert and learning daily no doubt. I've used some of her advice. It worked.)

        Peace and Love,


    • Thomas James

      Isn't there something in the bible that says that if you plant a garden and try to uproot the weeds that you may end up uprooting the good plants as well? Of course an atheism blog in the middle of religious blogs is like a weed that can seriously choke the good plants or at least plant seeds of doubt about the credibility of religion. However to request that an atheist blog be seperated into its own category will be percieved as a grave threat because this effectively stops all of the religious traffic. So the end effect of a seperate category will be the equivalent of banning and this will cause the atheist moderator to seek retaliation.

      If the predominant focus of the atheist blog were to be only concerned with economic theory then it could be argued that such a blog belongs in the politics department or if the atheist blog concerned itself only with science then it could be argued that it belongs in the science department. However the atheism blog in question concerns itself with religion but only with the criticism of religion.

      What you are arguing is that you do not like weeds in your garden and as far as you are concerned a weed is not a real plant. And of course before the fall of man weeds never existed. However one of the advantages of freedom of speech is that even though it allows speech that can be very offensive, freedom of speech also allows a freedom of good speech that would not be possible if we embraced censorship.

      • Thomas,

        You silence Jesus here when he says, "Serpents"? Jesus called them "serpents." They didn't like it. He did not up weed them. They did that to themselves. He warned them.

        Neither am I weeding out Matt Oxley.

        In so many words, I said, he calls himself atheist, anti-religious, and anti-spiritual. Let there be that category, which is truth.

        I am not silencing him. I'm not censoring him. He's labeled himself.

        He took it all as a threat, but he did much more than that.

        I did not offer it as a threat or to silence him or censor him but only in speaking the truth.

        I did not judge and condemn him, sentence him, or punish him. He assumed those things. I did not call down the wrath.

        I trust you can sort this out: Sort the falsehood from the truth.


    • Thank you for your positive thoughts on me. Really appreciate it. I didn't notice the email change is the reason for gravatar. Thanks for the notice. Have a great weekend and Happy May Day!

      • What do those who call themselves "Christians" think about the following in terms of this post?

        And he said, "I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me." (Luke 22:34)

    • Hi Thomas,

      I had more thoughts but had other work I had to do.

      You are right that we are not to uproot the weeds. We could misidentify. It would be final unless we have the power to resurrect the dead. What was Jesus referring to? He was talking about mass destruction: Calling down the fire to destroy the whole city for one. That is not what I was doing concerning Matt Oxley, at least in the mundane. I do shake the dust from my feet though. It is a testimony of fact. I came in the name of the LORD and was refused.

      Now, you wrote that concerning a named category, "this effectively stops all of the religious traffic." It would stop some but certainly not all traffic. You are right though that that was Matt's main concern: Having almost no unsuspecting/deceived visitors: My point (deception; wolf in sheep's clothing). As for calling it "the equivalent of banning," I think you are diminishing the difference between a category change and actual banning, which I have undergone. They aren't equal, not even close, although I take your point.

      My original thought was a category "Anti-Religion/Anti-Spirituality," but I wrote "Atheism" because "Anti-Religion/Anti-Spirituality" was too good, too clear, too to-the-point in terms of killing the deception. I did offer it nevertheless but afterwards. You see, Matt rejected the one that should have been easier for him to handle. "Anti-Religion/Anti-Spirituality" fits Matt Oxleys' blog perfectly. It doesn't fit all non-theist blogs. Most Buddhists are not theists for instance.

      Lastly, Matt would be free to speak from an "Anti-Religion/Anti-Spirituality" category. Entrecard also has a number of pages where categories are purely secondary. A category change is not censorship. It is leveling the field.

      Matt is a focal point of a clique of activists revved up by the newness of it all: Coming out....

      The cerebral "Christians" are staid. The loudest "Christians" are often not educated in science, philosophy, politics, and the like. They know their literal scripture, but.... Of course the reverse is true too, and the loudest Atheist have studied many things but even though they've read scripture, they can't get out of the literal rut. They are in it deeper than the Biblical literalists who call themselves Christians who often can't answer the literal-logic traps that Jesus never broke a sweat over when silencing his critics who at least had the brains back then to know when they lost the debate. They didn't have all the distractions and brain-numbing things such as TV, etc.

      So, "Christians" have been many for a long time. They are fractured by reason of apostate leaderships/bad shepherds. Atheists are right now syncretists, as they are hot for war and rallied, putting aside their differences for the sake of defeating the enemy that is righteousness. They see the truth as enslaving, not freeing.

      I was banned to stop me from planting the seeds of truth in the minds of other Entrecard users: Exposing Matt's reasoning, methods, and plan. However, what they done is crucify me, which always backfires.

      Now, you have to prioritize here. Is proper, non-deceptive categorization more at censorship? No it is not. So, while you don't want to censor the Good News, you don't want it sneaked into the category "Atheism" with a big red "A" on it (which by the way was the Anarchist symbol that the Atheists misappropriated as more of it's deception – riding on the back of anarchists groundwork – making a connection between atheism and anarchism that has a following – tying it all together with anti-state, as if Jesus was the Prince of this world) and with the name "The Raging Atheists." Then click through, and find yourself not on an atheist blog but on the RLCC only all set to work the angles to keep people around even if they don't agree: Nice and phony.

      Jesus knows how the devil thinks.

      Well, this site is not designed to be popular. It's designed to be right. Those will remain two different things until the gathering out. You see, Thomas, everyone is being marked by his or her way.

      The reason for the ban from Entrecard is because it was enough. Satan banned me, but God delivered me out of their hands. Do you see that? I do.

      What are YOU going to do?


    • My Brother TOM. I feel for you. I believe it was an unfair thing for him to do. It was becoming personal when all of these is just business. they need bloggers to sign up. we "need" entrecard for traffic. he could have looked at it that way!

      Nevertheless, please know that i'm with you in this battle against him. but know that i'm not against entrecard. God Bless you brother and God bless your blog more!

      • Hi Mikes,

        Thank you for adding your comment.

        Humanity must rise out of the system, the current global system, where individuals are motivated, tempted, and tempt each other, by, and with, selfish interests first and eventually at all.



    • Possibly brother, possibly. Your reply gives me something to think about. really think about. thanks and God bless you more!

      • Hi Again, Mikes,

        For those few who will delve in here, Mikes is referring to the update of this post, which update is headed as, "ENTRECARD-BANNING UPDATE: SATURDAY, MAY 09, 2009." Mikes is still an Entrecard user.

        Thank you, Mike, for taking the time to read and to leave your thoughts.

        Peace and Love to You, Brother,

        Tom Usher